800cc Ktm a reality?

[blauth]

And a cable clutch?

Sure it will be hydraulic, look at angle of the cable and it would hurt one of KTM's particularly good trademarks.

It does look like a heavyweight though. The Yamaha 700 looked way more exciting.

[Xpat]

What is the advantage - if there is one - of the almost horizontally mounted rear shock? It's probably just my ignorance, but I haven't seen that set-up on any dirt going bike.

[Sláinte Mhaith]

What is the advantage - if there is one - of the almost horizontally mounted rear shock? It's probably just my ignorance, but I haven't seen that set-up on any dirt going bike.

Don't know but from a technical point of view: The rear mounting point is higher extending the length of arm to the pivot point and thus smaller forces on the shock. The front mounting point being lower makes for more space under the seat or maybe a lower seat.

Sub

[Pom17]

And a cable clutch?

Sure it will be hydraulic, look at angle of the cable and it would hurt one of KTM's particularly good trademarks.

It does look like a heavyweight though. The Yamaha 700 looked way more exciting.

Can guarantee you that it will be lighter than the Yamaha and probably be launched one year or more ahead of the Yamaha. The words Lightweight and DS does not exist in the same sentence on a Yamaha

[Poffmuis]

but I haven't seen that set-up on any dirt going bike.

Early eighties, XT550

[edgy]

Pom I reckon you are wrong....well Im hoping so anyway!

[Xpat]

Pom I reckon you are wrong....well Im hoping so anyway!

Judging by XT660 R/Z, I'd bet KTM will be lighter. And looking at the T7 concept (very good looking IMO) with high sitting engine topped off by high sitting tank, it wouldn't take too much for KTM to make better handling bike. And I like that KTM seem to be trying - check the split low hanging tanks ala 950/990. Love those for low COG as well as for bike protection eliminating need for the crashbars.

Sure, I will not buy first two years' models   , but once the issues are known and fixable, this may be main candidate for a multicylinder bike for me.

[Pom17]

Pom I reckon you are wrong....well Im hoping so anyway!

I truly hope so myself, but I think we can all agree that to date Yamaha has not been able to produce a light DS bike. Or light compared to the competition. They just don’t build them that way. They value other things in a bike. And there is nothing wrong with that.

EDIT: By the way, I still think it will be a great bike non the less.

[jaybiker]

"Lightness that's off the scale"

Read the blurb.  And interpret it any way you will. 

[Amsterdam]

And a cable clutch?

I am sure it will have a cable clutch if the road bike is anything to go by.  That is quite a change if you want to make this hydraulic this far into the design.

http://www.asphaltandrubber.com/bikes/ktm-790-duke-prototype/

[Bwana]

 This is going to be a machine of note KTM know how to shed weight. As a matter of interest the crossplane crank shaft has been around for many years. Honda was using it in there Twins in the late 70,s. I think a British bike manufacturer Matchless or vincent used it before that. 

[Tom van Brits]

 

[Fransw]

This is going to be a machine of note KTM know how to shed weight. As a matter of interest the crossplane crank shaft has been around for many years. Honda was using it in there Twins in the late 70,s. I think a British bike manufacturer Matchless or vincent used it before that.

Bwanana, I hope your right! If they can keep the wet weight at 181kg,  they will sell hundreds here!

[Xpat]

I think it is pretty safe bet that the bike will be about 200 kg wet - no chance for 180 kg wet (probably even for SE version). That will already make it 15 kg less than 800GS, and almost 30 kg on AT - and with the better/similar power.

[jaybiker]

This is going to be a machine of note KTM know how to shed weight. As a matter of interest the crossplane crank shaft has been around for many years. Honda was using it in there Twins in the late 70,s. I think a British bike manufacturer Matchless or vincent used it before that.

In the case of Vincent, you're talking about V twins which is a totally different crank arrangement. Not too sure about Matchless, but you can be sure that someone or other invented the idea long before the modern era.
A friend of mine is particularly fond of the saying that in automotive design there is nothing new. Just history that you haven't read.

[Bwana]

Sorry My Mistake it was not Matchless or Vincent it was a company called URS in the 60"s also in a 4 cylinder (wikipedia). Cross plane cranks are used in American V8 's hence the grumble as per say a Ferrari. I am not sure and stand to be corrected but isnt the tubular frame KTM use generally lighter than the standard sub frame used by other manufacturers.

[Bundu]

Sorry My Mistake it was not Matchless or Vincent it was a company called URS in the 60"s also in a 4 cylinder (wikipedia). Cross plane cranks are used in American V8 's hence the grumble as per say a Ferrari. I am not sure and stand to be corrected but isnt the tubular frame KTM use generally lighter than the standard sub frame used by other manufacturers.

the 1290 frame weighs just under 10kg, so only 4% of the fully fuelled bike 

[XRRX]

Guess I'm old-school, but between lower weight and stronger design/ built, I choose the latter. I stand to be corrected, but isn't the AT the only adv bike with a double cradle frame!? The rest all use the engine as a stressed member underneath a roadish frame, with the subsequent mounting of bash plates onto the engine casing... This 800 KTM also seems to lack any sort of frame underneath the engine .- just like the GS and XCX....
Seeing it in that light - the AT is light given its design/build strenght!

[Sláinte Mhaith]

Guess I'm old-school, but between lower weight and stronger design/ built, I choose the latter. I stand to be corrected, but isn't the AT the only adv bike with a double cradle frame!? The rest all use the engine as a stressed member underneath a roadish frame, with the subsequent mounting of bash plates onto the engine casing... This 800 KTM also seems to lack any sort of frame underneath the engine .- just like the GS and XCX....
Seeing it in that light - the AT is light given its design/build strenght!

The KTM800 might also use a trellis frame like other adventure bikes. To me the trellis frame look stronger than a double cradle frame.  The latter needs much thicker sections to achieve strength.

[Tom van Brits]

Guess I'm old-school, but between lower weight and stronger design/ built, I choose the latter. I stand to be corrected, but isn't the AT the only adv bike with a double cradle frame!? The rest all use the engine as a stressed member underneath a roadish frame, with the subsequent mounting of bash plates onto the engine casing... This 800 KTM also seems to lack any sort of frame underneath the engine .- just like the GS and XCX....
Seeing it in that light - the AT is light given its design/build strenght!

XRRX ypu took the word out of my mouth. I was having the same thought and was thinking to post and then said ahh....just leave it

However since were are at least 2 sharing the sentiment, the only way of 'fixing' this problem (yes I see it as a problem) is to fit RUMBUX which is the most clever design crash-bars for bikes in the field today. Even the Super Tenere which is often in trouble with broken sump early into a ride was remedied by Rumbux. I have seen how it works, it does not mount onto the engine casing and as result like most others brake the casing. Now put the brilliant Rumbux crash-bars on a scale and see what your skinny chicks all of a sudden weighs! So this 'use engine as stress member' to me is ridiculous and I would rather go with the double cradle frame for strength. Call me old-school, I don't care.